The Sedition Act is now clearly used as an instrument of gross injustice and a weapon of mass oppression. The recent spate of arbitrary arrests and selective prosecution of Pakatan Rakyat leadersrepresents a gross affront to the democratic process and signifies a breakdown in the rule of law.

The dragnet To date, five Members of Parliament and two State Assemblymen as well as several other Pakatan leaders have been prosecuted. It is a long list whichis growing even longer with no one being spared except UMNO leaders and their right-wing racist cohorts.

Today, this wave of repression has taken on the hue of an outrageous farce with the prosecution of law professor Azmi Sharom for expressing his academic opinion on the Selangor MB crisis. Incidentally, though it was not a view that was pro-UMNO, neither was it pro-PKR in any way. But as a firm believer in academic freedom, I maintain that Azmi has every right to express his views.

Hijacking democracy and the electoral process If the prosecutions are successful, it is likely that at least six parliamentary by-elections and three state assembly by-elections will ensue, if we include myown impending Federal Court appeal which, going by the current state of the judiciary, holds not much promise that justice will prevail.

What we are seeing is thus a blatant and shameless attempt by Najib to hijack democracy by having duly elected law makers from Pakatan to be stripped of their democratic entitlements and disqualified from contesting in the subsequent by-elections. This will be a grave perversion of justice via the back door of the Attorney-General's chambers.

Yesterday, the dragnet of repression was extended to haul in members of civil society with the police arresting 156 Penang Voluntary Patrol Unit (PPS) members – essentially citizens who have volunteered to perform their civic responsibilities to keep the peace. There is also the audacious threat by the Home Minister to take action against PAS's Unit Amal which has been for years recognised by the people as effective in crowd control during opposition rallies apart from its other humanitarian and welfare work.

The statement from the Prime Minister's Office that the Sedition Act will be repealed is not only hollow but a gross lie considering the spate of prosecutions being carried. How can such flagrant use of an archaic and repressive law convince anyone that the government is serious about legislative reform?

On the contrary, it nails the lie to the elaborate game of deception played by Najib when in July 2012, he proclaimed with much fanfare and PR blitz, his National Transformation Plan.

By holding out such a big promise to the people of making Malaysia the "best democracy in the world", while in reality imposing a new reign of Executiveterror, Najib has therefore perpetrated a gross and reckless fraud on the people.

The volley ball blame game being played by the Home Ministry in tossing the blame on the Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail for this heightened pace of prosecutions is futile because at the end of the day,all are culpable in this despicable enterprise as they are part and parcel of the Executive.

Attack on justice and freedom In a fully functioning democracy, such abuse of power by the Executive can and will be checked by the judiciary by summary dismissal of the chargesfor they are not just frivolous and an abuse of legal process but constitute a general affront to our basic sense of justice and freedom.

These are attacks on the very foundation of our constitution which guarantees freedom from arbitrary arrests and prosecution. They are direct assaults on the democratic process which renders elected representatives to be duty-bound to speak for the people against injustice and abuse of power.

The question is: Do we have a strong, independent and vibrant judiciary that believes that politicians and their appointees who hold high executive office must act according to the rule of law, and not the rule of political expediency?

Do we have the requisite number of judges who will judge without fear or favour according to the criterion of justice? Will they have the moral courage and conviction to send a clear message that they will not be party to the Executive's attempt to pervert the course of justice and violate the liberties and rights of the people as enshrined in the Constitution?

A government must not only administer efficiently though in this regard the Najib government has failed miserably. But even more profound is the moral obligation to administer justly.

Racist speeches by UMNO ministers and MPs, given full media coverage by UMNO's propaganda network machine, are on the uptake. Extreme right-wing groups and countless other racist organizations continue to spread and incite communal hatred.

But what does it say for justice and democracy whenthese racists and purveyors of religious extremism get off scot free while those who speak the truth for the sake of a better, more harmonious Malaysia are treated as criminals?

Conclusion Merdeka Day has just come and gone and two days ago the Malaysian people were treated to a grand show to mark our day of independence. It is supposed to be a celebration from the yoke of colonialism for our new found freedoms and rights.

Indeed, what a tragic irony it is that we are in fact witnessing the unbridled use of the Sedition Act that is nothing but a relic of this era of colonialism. TrueMerdeka means that we must reject this law, not use it as what the Najib government is doing, with renewed vigour and determination as an instrument of injustice and a weapon of mass oppression.

Since our history past, there have always been 'royalists' and 'republicans' in our midst. Nevertheless, when our federal constitution was framed and agreed upon, we created and allowed for the institution of the sultans. Nine states had sultans and Malacca and Penang were Straits Settlements; without sultans but with local, people-appointed governors.

Our royal institution was legally defined as 'the Conference of Rulers.' My question is, why call it a 'conference', and why call it 'rulers' and not it sultans? My answers are simple, but maybe the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), our accreditation of knowledge agency may not accept them. After all, they disallowed me to teach 'the constitution' for the Masters Programme at UCSI University when we offered the Master's in Public Policy (MPP) at the university.

Now, to explicate my answers for the record. It is a conference because there a 10 different categories of 'rulers;' for the 11 states of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, and, which is not called 'Melayusia' either.

The peninsula, as different and separate from the other two founding partners of Malaysia, is only one member of this 'rulership'. So, when the Conference of Rulers meets, it includes not just all hereditary leaders and people-appointed rulers of the different 'states of the federation' but also their chief ministers or 'menteris besar.'

The Conference of Rulers therefore consists of at least 26 members who provide leadership for the current 13 'states of the federation'. These 13 states are made up of three legitimate but different categories of 'states' that make up Malaysia; of Sabah, Sarawak and another federation of states called peninsular Malaysia.

The other 'rulers' are chief ministers as the peoples' representatives of the respective elected governments who command a majority in their respective assemblies.

There two kinds of 'rulerships' in each of the states of the federation: one of sultans, and the other of appointed governors. The history of each of the hereditary Malay rulers is unique and different for each state's history, and 'kingdom creation'.

Their roles, rules of conduct and authority in our democracy are however pre-defined within the federal constitution based on the history of the Westminster form of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, ours is and always will be a constitutional monarchy, and never a feudal one.

Case study of Selangor leadership crisis

When we teach public policy, one of the basic and core concerns we teach is called 'problem-solving', or how do we define any public policy problem.

So, what is the public policy problem with Selangor today? It is simply founded on what is the nature and form of our constitutional democracy and constitutional monarchy.

Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, the former leader of the Pakatan government, a coalition of three parties but one which is not registered as one body, who held a majority in Selangor has now lost the confidence of the majority; with an explicit show of discontent by 30 coalition members of their support for a new and different candidate.

This is never a new problem in every constitutional democracy of the Westminster democracy heritage. This is how the transfer of leadership change is registered, without the need for a new election of representatives, as the core problem of only one of lack of confidence in leadership, and not a change of government.

Role of the monarch

What is the role of the constitutional monarch in this instance? Not complex or complicated. Simply use wisdom to identify and define who has leadership trust of majority, regardless of reasons or, frankly, even of capability, and simply pick the one who commands a majority in the assembly.

The validity of this choice would become evident on the day the assembly meets, if the person does not have a majority, as he or she will be defeated in the first vote on any issue of substance.

Is such wisdom then unique to the monarchs, or found only in blue blood-types? I am sorry to say; it is not, it is a God-given skill of the gap between information and knowledge about all the issues and concerns of life, involved in public policy-making.

Therefore, can the monarch then choose to toss a coin and then define who the new leader is? No, he cannot, as long as there is a clear candidate with a majority or supporters. If for any reason he is not confident, he can ask the House to meet and make that determination. But, under our model of Westminster democracy, as constitutional monarch, he has no absolute privilege to do so. The only time this happens, is if there is a vote in the House, and there is a hung Parliament.

Even so, the way forward is for the monarch to invite all leaders of all parties and try to broker and break in the impasse. He can only assume the role of an independent and neutral monarch but never as a partisan member of any political party; even if his business interests are protected and preserved by the government of the day.

What is Selangor's way forward?

I write as a citizen in Petaling Jaya who paid taxes and have owned property here, and having lived in and around Selangor for about 50 years. I have no desire to be a menteri besar so I can accept that 'some so-called istiadat' may not allow me to be MB because I was born in Kedah; but I cannot accept such logic as even that is unconstitutional as the constitution only recognises citizens. State rules take secondary consideration.

I appeal to His Highness the Sultan not to 'play politics or allow himself to be manipulated by local partisan politics, but to please make the decision which is best for the people of Selangor. Khalid has to go, because he has been sacked by his own party. We need another candidate from Pakatan, but who originates from PKR, as replacement for Khalid, but the same person must command the majority in the assembly.

Therefore, whoever is chosen or selected in the process of this high-powered high-level politics, please safeguard the interests of all residents and citizens of Selangor and we want the state government to return to good governance of the state so that we can grow our economy and help the simple and ordinary people in Selangor to get on with our lives.

Local governance in Selangor needs much work to be done for improvement of Local Authorities. If Pakatan cannot show distinct improvement at this third level of national governance, I for one, will work hard to have this government changed at the next general election. May God bless Selangor.